Sinclair to air anti-Kerry special

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
You have yourself mentioned their cetralized news bureau which has taken over the function of much of the local channels news. It is the obvious candidate to produce and provide personnel for the show.

They make productions for their local news items- but I have not heard them making segments for any regularly broadcast and widely syndicated News program.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by GePap
They make productions for their local news items- but I have not heard them making segments for any regularly broadcast and widely syndicated News program.

Howard Stern was considered a regular news source under the same rules. I do not think it takes much to qualify.

[Drachasor]

I find it odd that the examples used to defend what is going on were found to be wrong too.

CBS: that became a massive scandal.

F911: Had to stop some of its commercials.

How do these things which everyone admits are bad and shouldn't have happened justify a new event that's even worse in its scope?

-Drachasor

[Ming]

Originally posted by GePap
If it were harmless, Sinclair, which has a long and blatant history of politicizing its operation (incluidng getting rid of all local news bureaus to replace them with a centralized news organization), would not force its stations to show it.

getting rid of all local news bureaus to replace them with a centralized news organization is a money saving corporate move, not some evil plot that you are making it out to me.

All they are doing is making a programming change across THEIR network to air a documentry at a special time. While we will all agree that we know why, and what their intent is, there is NOTHING legally wrong with what they are doing... just like there is nothing legally wrong with F911...

[Ming]

Originally posted by Drachasor
I find it odd that the examples used to defend what is going on were found to be wrong too.

CBS: that became a massive scandal.

F911: Had to stop some of its commercials.

How do these things which everyone admits are bad and shouldn't have happened justify a new event that's even worse in its scope?

-Drachasor

F911 had to stop that "particular" commerical... but can still sell copies right before the election, and even have a pay for view event. They may also produce another commercial that will fall within FCC guidelines.

And how is this "worse" in scope than all the other examples... or worse than Bill Mahers show which every week trashes the president and ends most shows with anything but Bush?

Fair is fair... while I find all of it deplorable... it's being done. If you are outraged about this, be outraged about all that is going on... against BOTH candidates... just don't pick on this because it's against your candidate, yet play wink wink about stuff that is helping your candidate

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Drachasor
F911: Had to stop some of its commercials.

Commericals are covered by more rules than "news documentaries", as are other non news programs. Example: a decades old movie having nothing to do with politics starring a currently running politician would be covered by 'equal time', softball interiews on a news program letting talk about all his political programes would not. The press largely gets a pass on the such issues.

[Drachasor]

Because it is a fiat order to show a particular show instead of normal broadcasting. They are going to present it as pure news, which gives it an even greater impression of urgency and legitimacy (else why override regular programming?).

Standard shows that are on every week have a particular audience and one knows what to expect from them. Even standard media outlets might have a fair bit of bias here and there, but one knows that bias is present.

This is done in a way so they don't have to convey that knowledge. It is far from the same thing as a weekly show or news program. This is only made worse by how it is being targetting at the public and the timing just a couple weeks before the election.

-Drachasor

[Lefty Scaevola]

Another quirk in broadcast laws:
Who can describe a situation where a broadcast tv station can not only legally brocast the prohibited obscene words, but is required to under federal law?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ming

All they are doing is making a programming change across THEIR network to air a documentry at a special time. While we will all agree that we know why, and what their intent is, there is NOTHING legally wrong with what they are doing... just like there is nothing legally wrong with F911...

I already said, ads for F9/11, showing Bush making statements and playing golf were found to be too much- how could a piece claiming Kerry's anti-war stance prolongued the Vietnam War be any less than that?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Commericals are covered by more rules than "news documentaries", as are other non news programs.

Yes... when the ad shows a candidate, there are very strict rules and guidelines... none of which apply to documentaries... or news programs... or "entertainment" programs...

[GePap]

From a "pro-Nader" group:

http://www.orwelliantimes.com/2004/04/30.html

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

FCC Commissioner Copps weighs in

FCC COMMISSIONER STATEMENT ON SINCLAIR AIRING OF ANTI-KERRY SHOW
Tue Oct 12 2004 13:39:02 ET

FCC COMMISSIONER COPPS CRITICIZES SINCLAIR CORPORATE DECISION TO PREEMPT LOCAL STATIONS FOR POLITICAL BROADCAST

Commissioner Michael J. Copps reacted to reports that Sinclair Broadcast Group will preempt more than 60 local stations across the country to air an overtly political program in the days prior to the Presidential election.

Copps stated: “This is an abuse of the public trust. And it is proof positive of media consolidation run amok when one owner can use the public airwaves to blanket the country with its political ideology -- whether liberal or conservative. Some will undoubtedly question if this is appropriate stewardship of the public airwaves. This is the same corporation that refused to air Nightline’s reading of our war dead in Iraq. It is the same corporation that short-shrifts local communities and local jobs by distance-casting news and weather from hundreds of miles away. It is a sad fact that the explicit public interest protections we once had to ensure balance continue to be weakened by the Federal Communications Commission while it allows media conglomerates to get even bigger. Sinclair, and the FCC, are taking us down a dangerous road.”

[Lefty Scaevola]

Heh, heh. A gauntlet is down

Kerry Senior Advisor Chad Clanton to SINCLAIR Broadcasting: 'They better hope we don't win'

[GePap]

I thought Michael Powell was FCC chairman.

I assume Commissioner Copps is not the same as Chairman

[Ming]

Gee... nice opinion... but he doesn't say anything about how it's against the law, or that the FCC can stop it